Washington D.C., Oct 30, 2017 / 04:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- One fated Halloween, 500 years ago, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle in a dramatic act of defiance against the Catholic Church.
Or, he may have just hung it on the doorknob. Or mailed out copies.
Or, if he did nail it, the act of the nailing itself would not have been all that significant, because the door may have been used as a bulletin board where everyone was nailing announcements.
And he probably wasn’t all that defiant; he likely had the attitude of a scholar trying to raise questions and concerns. At that point, Luther didn’t know how defiant he would eventually become, or that his act, and his subsequent theological work, would lead to one of the greatest disruptions of unity in the Church’s history.
“This was not a declaration of war against the Catholic Church, nor was it a break,” Dr. Alan Schreck with Franciscan University of Steubenville told CNA.
“It was a concerned, Augustinian monk and biblical scholar correcting an abuse, and it was really a call for a dialogue.”
However, it took fewer than five years for this call for dialogue to transform into schism, rejection of the authority of the Church’s tradition and bishops and most of the sacraments, and a growing number of Protestant communities, united only by their rejection of the Catholic Church.
While historians debate just how dramatic was the actual posting of the 95 theses, its anniversary is an occasion to look back at what the role of the most popular Protestant was in the movement that ultimately split Western Christendom in two.
Who was Martin Luther?
Martin Luther was born on November 10, 1483, the oldest son of Hans and Margarethe Luther. His father, a successful business and civic leader, had grand visions for his eldest son’s life and sent him to school with the hopes he would become a lawyer.
While Luther completed his bachelor’s and master’s degree according to his father’s plan, he dropped out of law school, finding himself increasingly drawn to the subjects of philosophy and theology.
Soon after leaving law school, Luther entered an Augustinian monastery, a decision he would later attribute to a vow he made during a precarious horseback ride, when he was nearly struck by lightning in the midst of a storm. Terrified that he was about to die, the 21-year-old Luther cried out to St. Anne, promising that he would become a monk if he survived. He felt it was a vow he could not break; his father felt it was a waste of his education.
By all accounts, Luther was a Catholic success story before he became the leading figure of the Reformation. He joined the monastery in 1505, and by 1507 he was ordained a priest. He became a renowned theologian and biblical scholar within the order, as well as a powerful and popular preacher and lecturer at the University of Wittenberg in Germany.
During his years of study and growing popularity, Luther began developing the groundwork of his theology on salvation and scripture that would ultimately become deal-breakers in his relationship with the Catholic Church.
The offense of selling indulgences
But it wasn’t strictly theological ideas that first drove Luther to the ranks of reformation ringleader – it was his critique of the practice of selling indulgences, the central subject of his 95 theses, that catapulted him into the limelight.
According to Catholic teaching, an indulgence is the remission of all or part of the temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven, and can be applied either to the person performing the prescribed act or to a soul in Purgatory.
To obtain an indulgence, one must complete certain spiritual requirements, such as going to the sacraments of Confession and Communion, in addition to some other act or good work, such as making a pilgrimage or doing a work of mercy.
But even years before Martin Luther, abuses of indulgences were rampant in the Church.
Instead of prescribing an act of prayer or a work of mercy as a way to obtain an indulgence, clerics began also authorizing a “donation” to the Church as a good work needed to remit the temporal punishment due to sin.
Increasingly, people grew critical of the sale of indulgences, as they watched money gleaned from people’s afterlife anxiety go to fund the extravagant lives of some of the clergy. The money was also often used to buy clerical offices, the sin of simony.
During Martin Luther’s time, in northern Germany, the young and ambitious prince-Archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg was offered the position of the Archbishop of Mainz, but was unwilling to relinquish any of his previously-held power.
Meanwhile in Rome, Pope Leo X was demanding a considerable fee from Albrecht for his new position, as well as from the people of his dioceses for the fund to build St. Peter’s Basilica. Albrecht took out a loan and promised Rome 50 percent of the funds extracted from – as critics would describe it – preying on people’s fear of Purgatory.
For the St. Peter’s fund, the Pope had employed Dominican friar Johann Tetzel to be the Grand Commissioner for Indulgences for the country of Germany.
According to historians, Tetzel liberally preached the indulgence, over-promising remission of sins, extending it to include even future sins one might commit, rather than sins that had already been repented of and confessed. He even allegedly coined the gimmicky indulgence phrase: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from Purgatory springs.”
It was Tetzel’s activities that ultimately pushed Luther to protest by publishing his 95 theses.
The 95 theses and the seeds of reform
“When he posted the 95 theses, he wasn’t a Lutheran yet,” said Michael Root, professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America.
“In some ways they get things rolling, but what’s important is what happens after the 95 theses when Luther gets pushed into a more radical position.”
Regardless of how dramatically they were posted to the door of Wittenberg Castle on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed not only his theses but the feelings of many faithful at the time who were also frustrated with the corruption and abuse they saw in the Church.
Christian humanists such as Erasmus and St. Thomas More were contemporaries of Luther who also objected to abuses within Church while not breaking from it.
Meanwhile, Luther’s already-established reputation as a respected professor, as well as access to the printing press, allowed his theses and ideas to spread at a rate previously unmatched by previous reformers who had similar critiques of the Church.
“Clearly there was a kind of symbiosis between Luther and the development of the printing press,” Root said. “What he was writing was able to engage lots of people. Many of them were short pamphlets that could be printed up quickly, they sold well…so he was on the cutting edge of technology and he fit what the technology needed – short, energetic things people wanted to read.”
Most historians agree that Luther’s original intent was not to start a new ecclesial community – that idea would have been “unthinkable at the time,” Root noted. ??“So that’s too much to say; however, it’s too little to say all he want to do was reform abuses.”
By 1518, his theses spread throughout Germany and intellectual Europe. Luther also continued writing prolifically, engaging in disputes with Tetzel and other Catholic critics and further developing his own ideas.
For its part, the Church did not issue an official response for several years, while attempts at discussions dissolved into defensive disputations rather than constructive dialogue. As a result, early opportunities to engage Luther’s criticisms on indulgences instead turned into arguments about Church authority as a whole.
Swatting flies with a sledgehammer – Luther becomes a Lutheran
One of Luther’s most well-known critics was Catholic theologian Johann Eck, who declared Luther’s theses heretical and ordered them to be burned in public.
In 1519, the two sparred in a disputation that pushed Luther to his more extreme view that scripture was the only valid Christian authority, rather than tradition and the bishops.
“The Catholic critics quickly changed the subject from indulgences to the question of the Church’s authority in relation to indulgences, which was a more dangerous issue,” Root said. “Now you’re getting onto a touchy subject. But there was also an internal dynamic of Luther’s own thought,” that can be seen in his subsequent writings.
In 1520, Luther published three of his most renowned treatises: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, On the Freedom of a Christian Man, and To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.
By that time, it was clear that what Luther thought was wrong in the Church was not just the abuse of indulgences, but the understanding of the message of Christianity on some basic levels. Besides denouncing the Pope as a legitimate authority, Luther also declared that faith alone, sola fide, was all that was necessary for salvation, rather than faith and good works.
“Luther was definitely trying to fix what was a legitimate problem, which was pelagian tendencies, or people trying to work their way into heaven,” said Dr. Paul Hilliard, Assistant Professor and Chair of Church History at Mundelein Seminary. It had created a “mercantile attitude” in some people at the time of Luther – “if I do this, God will do this.”
“So Luther was trying to correct these things, but the phrase I sometimes say is that Luther swatted the fly of pelagianism with a sledgehammer. In order to keep any trace of humans earning salvation out of the system, he changed the system.”
Luther’s distrust of human beings did not particularly spring from his criticisms of indulgences and the subsequent pushback from the Church – it was in line with most anthropological thought at the time, which tended toward a very negative view of human nature. Therefore, in his Protestant views, he sought to get rid of any human involvement wherever possible – particularly when it came to interpreting scripture and salvation.
“On the scale of beasts to angels, most people (at the time) would have us a lot closer to beasts,” Hilliard noted.
The Catholic Church officially condemned Luther’s theses in a papal bull, Exsurge Domine, promulgated in June 1520, and in part authored by Eck. The declaration afforded Luther a 60-day window to recant his positions, lest he be excommunicated.
But by the time the papal bull was issued, Luther had not only denounced the authority of the Pope, but had declared him an anti-Christ. The window for reconciling views was all but closed.
The popular and political reforms
Despite Luther’s increasingly radical claims against the Pope and the Church, his popularity spread, due to his compelling and prolific writings and, to Luther’s dismay, his populist appeal.
Luther popularized the idea of a “priesthood of all believers” to the exclusion of an ordained, ministerial priesthood. Rather than bearing an indelible mark on their soul, in Luther’s view ministerial priests did not differ from the “priesthood of believers” except in office and work. This, along with his personality and background, appealed to the poor and working class of the time who were frustrated with the lavish lives of Church hierarchy, which typically came at the expense of the poor in rural areas.
“Luther was very much a populist, he was a man of the people, he was scruff, he came from sort of peasant stock, he spoke the language of the people, so I think a lot of the common people identified with him,” Shreck said.
“He was one of them, he wasn’t far away in Rome or a seemingly wealthy bishop or archbishop…so he appealed particularly to Germans because he wanted a German liturgy and a German bible, and the people said, ‘we want a faith that is close to us and accessible’.”
But Luther balked when his religious ideals spurred the Peasant’s War of 1525, as peasants in rural areas of German revolted, motivated by Luther’s religious language of equality. The year or so of subsequent bloody war seemed to justify those who dismissed Luther as nothing more than a social movement rather than a serious religious reformer.
In order to maintain the esteem of those higher up, Luther disavowed the unruly peasants as not part of the official reform movement, laying the groundwork for the Anabaptists to fill in the religious gaps for the peasants in the future.
However, the Peasant’s War wasn’t the only time the Reformation got political – or lethal. Because of the vacuum of authority that now existed in Luther’s pope-less, emerging ecclesial community, authority was handed over to the local princes, who took advantage of the reformation to break from the fee-demanding Pope.
Much of Germany had embraced Lutheranism by the mid 1500s, though some parts, such as Bavaria, retained their Catholic faith.
For his part, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V officially condemned Luther’s theology at the 1521 Diet of Worms, a meeting of German princes, during which Luther famously refused to recant his position with the words: “Here I stand. God help me. I can do no other.”
Despite Charles V’s opposition to Luther’s views, he allowed for Luther’s safe passage from the diet, rather than enforcing the customary execution of heretics, and thus forfeited his best chance for stomping out the Reformation at its roots.
Historians speculate that while Charles V personally opposed Luther’s views, he let him live because he also saw the decentralizing of power from the Vatican as something of which he could take political advantage.
Reformation fever was also catching throughout Europe, and soon Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and England were all following Germany’s example of breaking from the Catholic Church and establishing state-run, Protestant ecclesial communities.
“I like to think of the story with the little Dutch boy with his the finger in the dyke,” Shreck said. “Once the breach was made, others follows his example. Once Luther did it, it was like the domino effect.”
“In a book by Owen Chadwick, he said the Reformation came not because Europe was irreligious, but because it was fervently religious,” Shreck added. “This was after the black death and a lot of social turmoil – people really wanted to turn to God and seek solace in faith.”
But the reformers were not all agreed on their beliefs, which led to the rise of numerous sects of Protestantism, including Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Anabaptism.
“Protestantism became very divided, though they all claimed to be doing the right thing because they believed they were maintaining the purity of the faith,” Schreck said.
Root noted that once the Protestant-Catholic divide “got embedded in political differences, between southern Europe and northern Europe, between Spain and England, and so the religious differences also became national differences, that just made matters far worse.”
“Once you have the wars of religion in 1546, then attitudes become very harsh. Once you start killing each other, it’s hard to sit down and talk,” he added.
The wars over religion would become especially pronounced in the 30 Years War of the 1600s, though at that point, religion had become more of a political tool for the state, Hilliard said.
“The 30 Years War is a really good indication that while religion was important, it was not the most important thing – it was a war between different competing princes to gain greater control of territories, during which religion was thrown into the mix,” Hilliard noted.
Could the Reformation have been avoided?
The million-dollar question at the center of Reformation history is whether the Reformation and the splitting of Western Christendom could have been avoided.
“Some would say by two years into the Reformation, the theological differences already ran very deep and there was no way you were going to get reconciliation,” Root said.
“But there are others who would argue that as late as the 1540s it was still possible that perhaps the right set of historical circumstances could have brought people together, and there’s no way of knowing, because you can’t run history again and change the variables.”
“Whether one could have settled it all then short of war, there were missed opportunities for reconciliation, that’s clear,” he added.
Luther’s fiery and rebellious personality, matched with the defiant and defensive stance that the Catholic Church took in response to his ideas, created a perfect storm that cemented the Protestant-Catholic divide.
Much of Luther’s thinking remained Catholic throughout his life, Schreck noted, including his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
“I think if there had been a sincere effort on the part of the Catholic hierarchy that his concerns were legitimate, history might have gone in a different direction.”
It wasn’t until Pope Paul III (1534–1549), 17 years after the fated theses first made their rounds, that the Catholic Church as a whole took a serious and official look at its own need for reform, and its need to respond to the Protestant Reformation.
This is Part 1 in a three-part series on the Reformation. Part 2 will discuss the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. Part 3 will discuss ecumenism today.
[…]
The U.S. Bishops have just been silenced! This saddens my neart. As long as Pope Francis and his supporters are in charge, this evil will continue to prevent Graces to flow into the Church. I pray that the suffering and prayers of our good priests and faithful members of our Church be accepted as reparations for sins committed by those who held power and continue to hold power in the Church established by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Lord have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord have mercy on us. Christ hear us. Christ graciously hear us.
“The U.S. Bishops have just been silenced! ”
Its about time! May they all be converted!
“We cry for the injustices perpetrated upon victims of abuse. We vow to fight a clerical culture that tolerates the abuse of authority. When abuse occurs, it is our sin and we must take it as such. These are not the sins of the media or the products of vast conspiracies. These are things we must recognize and fix. Our Holy Father has said it must end, and it must — not simply because he has said it, but because each of us in our hearts know that this is the only right thing to do.”
– Archbishop Christoohe Pierre
Apostolic Nuncio
Archbishop, with all due respect, the nuanced sychophantic speech that emanates from the “official” channels of The Church is for lack of a better word despicable. Its as though the shepherds are protecting the shepherds and slaughtering the sheep. Where is your compassion? Why do a last minute power play on the US bishops when you just spent an entire month with them. Couldn’t you resolve what you know was coming then? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
“It is clear the the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously,” Cupich said.”
Maybe it’s clear to him, but it isn’t clear to me.
The Vatican may be serious about the abuse crisis. But that means only that the Vatican is against pedophilia. And that is applaudable. But the Vatican is not at all serious about homosexuality. It condones homosexuality. James Martin thinks gay sex is as normal as hetero sex. The Vatican supports James Martin. Gave him a job at the Vatican.
The Pope is not the boss of the U.S. bishops. The bishops should simply decline to comply with the Vatican’s directive.
Yes, be obedient to God, not to the Pope.
Yet another reason Pope Francis needs to step down. He is a liability to the Church and doing everything in his power to sabotage efforts to curb sexual abuse.
The Vatican’s decision to prevent the USCCB from voting on reform may convince secular authorities in the USA that the Church is not serious in protecting those vulnerable to sexual predators. I look for more states to launch grand jury investigations similar to that of Pennsylvania. I fear the Church has lost its last chance to be proactive and if any reform takes place, it will come from the secular arm.
It’s like we are witnessing the corruption in the era of the Reformation all over again, and there were no serious attempts at reform until after the armies of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V sacked and looted Rome. It may take a similar chastisement for the Church Hierarchy to take this crisis seriously.
Canon 333 of the Code of Canon Law states, in part, that the Pope “obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them….” I’m not sure what exactly that means, but my prior post may have been in error.
Cupich interrupted to give the Vatican spiel to show who really was boss.
Personally, I think as this does not have to do with Doctrinal questions, it is time for some spine from our bishops, and to practice some good old fashioned Civil Disobedience.
Until they show that spine, and until they expose this rampant corruption, and not allow it to be swept under the rug of decades…
NOT ONE THIN DIME….except to charities and parishes I KNOW are Faithful.
I watched the 9 o’clock EWTN broadcast and the guy (forgot his name) who reported Cupich’s statement said it was his clear impression that Cupich knew what was coming and was ready for it.
And did you see the expression on Archbishop Chaput’s face as His Royal Highness spewed forth? (He could be seen behind Cupich, to the left.) Archbishop Chaput looked shocked and angry – and rightly so.
Somewhere in the mix are at least two longer-term risks:
(a) a threat to the sacramental seal due to aggressive state Attorney’s General probes (think Australia), and (b) the possible and even unintended mission creep of the lay investigation initially focused on sexual abuse and embedded homosexuality, e.g., eventually extending into disposal of Church properties to cover future lawsuits?
“Trusteeship” was an issue in early 20th century America, and 16th-century lay takeover of the Church by nation-states was an outcome of the Reformation (triggered by the comparatively trivial abuse of “indulgences” salesmanship).
Whether further delay helps or worsens the malignant and potentially far-reaching big picture is high-end Calculus. A different Vatican action could have been to simply announce, however late, a Visitation, and then to order the announced pause on pending USCCB actions.
Now the proof is in the pudding–a very short four days in February. Announcement of an extended and more functional session could be a good sign.
It is not “high end calculus”. It is not rocket science.
The bishop of Rome planned the timing of this kick to the bishops groin perfectly.
Francis holds DiNardo, et al, in complete contempt: just as he does the American pewsitter.
The states attorneys general will have an absolute field day with this.
So be it.
This was all scripted by the Holy See, make no mistake about it.
The diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago is Pinocchio to the Pontiff’s Geppetto.
Rod Dreher, in The American Conservative, reacts to the news from Baltimore:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-pope-is-the-problem/
There is a Tweet from Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press.
Bergoglio likes controlling votes whether it’s here or at the Youth Synod where voting was pushed through for the final document whether someone really considered what they’re voting for or not.
Adios, Aristotle and Aquinas. Welcome to the hyper-voluntarist “spirituality” of Bergoglio, Spadaro and yes, Martin.. where the “Ignatian” has a lot in common with Machiavelli and Nietzsche.
This is really a dangerous game though, where the folks playing at being crazy are actually crazy. This nervous breakdown, masquerading as new and improved, once in slow motion is now ever-escalating. This acting out won’t be resolved in family or by the family doctor but by the decisive interventions of that less spiritual, secular part of our psychiatric team known in the broadest sense as “the authorities” or “the cops.”
Should we also pray? Yes. Many rosaries…numbers of rosaries similar to those Bergoglio disparaged when he became Bishop of Rome.
If my child is stricken with dangerous illness, a life threatening,,but my husband due to poor judgement,,delay the life saving treatment,will i commit disobedience if i will bypass him?The situation is the same in the church..Men of goodwill must act now…
Actually it makes sense for them to wait until the February. Though it would’ve been better had the Holy See told them earlier than at last minute.
No, it does NOT make sense for the U.S. Bishops to wait until February. They’ve had a conflagaration on their hands since this summer. If it’s complexity around the issues, this is precisely why they need their November meeting for part 1 and February for a part 2 for addressing the current crisis. There’s a good chance that the lavender mafia led by Cupich–which wants to reduce the sexual abuse crisis to clericalism only, or about any other theory, as long as the topics of homosexuality and gay power cliques are not also brought into a serious forensic examination–was alarmed by a November 2018 study produced by Fr. Paul Sullins’ (Ph.D., sociology)and issued by the Ruth Institute that corrects the gay-friendly PC conclusions of the otherwise very pertinent John Jay Report. Every single U.S. bishop received a copy of this study, which establishes a high correlation between homosexuality among priests and clerical sexual abuse. Corrupt forces within the Vatican and their proxies in the U.S. were at risk of facing uncomfortable questions and even possibly an organized push back against those who wish to ignore the pink elephant in the room.